Endpoint-based man in the middle attack detection

ABSTRACT

A first node of a networked computing environment initiates each of a plurality of different man-in-the middle (MITM) detection tests to determine whether communications between first and second nodes of a computing network are likely to have been subject to an interception or an attempted interception by a third node. Thereafter, it is determined, by the first node, that at least one of the tests indicate that the communications are likely to have been intercepted by a third node. Data is then provided, by the first node, data that characterizes the determination. Related apparatus, systems, techniques and articles are also described.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The subject matter described herein relates to the detection of man inthe middle attacks within networked computing environments.

BACKGROUND

Computing environments are becoming increasingly complex as networksexchange data amongst large number of nodes (e.g., clients, mobilecomputing devices, servers, etc.) via various gateways (e.g., routers,etc.) and using various communications protocols. Such complexity makessuch networks susceptible to security breaches and other types ofunauthorized access to such communications. One type of unauthorizedaccess is a man in the middle (MITM) attack in which a node or otheragent redirects or otherwise intercepts communications between two othernodes within the computing environment. Such MITM attacks can gounnoticed for long periods of time which, in turn, allow the attackersto obtain sensitive and damaging information such as payment credentialsand the like.

SUMMARY

In one aspect, a first node of a networked computing environmentinitiates each of a plurality of different man-in-the middle (MITM)detection tests to determine whether communications between first andsecond nodes of a computing network are likely to have been subject toan interception or an attempted interception by a third node.Thereafter, it is determined, by the first node, that at least one ofthe tests indicate that the communications are likely to have beenintercepted by a third node. Data is then provided, by the first node,data that characterizes the determination.

The determining can be based on a comparison of expected resultsreceived by the first node with actual results received by the firstnode when communicating or attempting to communicate with the secondnode.

The first node can be a client and the second node can be a server suchthat the MITM detection tests can be executed at the client.

The first node can be a client and the second node can be a server suchthat the MITM detection tests can be executed at a fourth node remotefrom the first, second, and third nodes.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be a Hypertext TransferProtocol (HTTP) compression test in which the first node periodicallyrequests that a known file be returned compressed and replies arechecked to confirm whether the response includes a compressed version ofthe known file.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be an HTTP interceptiontest in which the first node periodically polls the second node andconfirms whether a returned status code indicates that there has been aredirect attempt by the third node. As part of the HTTP interceptiontest, the integrity of the underlying data can also be tested in orderto determine whether there is an indication of a interception attempt bythe third node.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be an HTTP authenticationtest in which the first node periodically polls the second noderequesting a known file and confirms whether a reply seekingauthentication credentials indicates that there has been an interceptionor an interception attempt by the third node.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can include the first node (i)periodically polling the second node for a static file, (ii)cryptographically hashing the static file, and (iii) comparing thecryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographic hash of a knownstatic file such that any discrepancies between the cryptographic hashesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be a communication protocoltest in which public keys utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to known public keys such that anydiscrepancies among public keys indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be a communication protocoltest in which a cipher suite utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to a known cipher suite such thatany discrepancies between cipher suites indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be an HTTP Strict TransportSecurity (HSTS) test in which public keys utilized by cryptographiccommunications involving the first node are compared to known publickeys such that any discrepancies among public keys indicates that therehas been a an interception or an interception attempt by the third node.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be a gateway fingerprinttest in which unexpected changes for an Internet Protocol (IP) and amedia access control (MAC) address for a router intermediate the firstnode and the second node indicates that there has been an interceptionor an interception attempt by the third node.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be a Time to Live (TTL)test in which values in packet traffic received by the first node aremonitored to determine if there are any values that indicate that therehas been an interception or an interception attempt by the third node.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be a multicast Domain NameSystem (mDNS) test in which the first node sends an mDNS request to thesecond node and if results received by the first node are compared toknown Domain Name System (DNS) values such that any discrepanciesbetween such values indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.

At least one of the MITM detection tests can be an update mechanism testin which the communications between the first node and the second noderelate to an update of software on the first node, and executablesforming part of the update are periodically compared against knownexecutables such that any discrepancies between such executablesindicate that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node.

The first node can, in some variations, be a mobile computing device. Insuch variations, the first node can be put into an airplane mode upondetermination of an occurrence of an interception or an interceptionattempt.

The first node can, in some variations, be a mobile computing devicecommunicating over a wireless network. In such cases, the first node cansend a broadcast to other nodes on the wireless network that indicatesthat an interception or an interception attempt has occurred on thewireless network.

In some variations, the plurality of different MITM detection testsinclude at least two (e.g., two, three, four, etc.) tests selected froma group consisting of: (i) a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)compression test in which the first node periodically requests that aknown file be returned compressed and replies are checked to confirmwhether the response includes a compressed version of the known file,(ii) an HTTP interception test in which the first node periodicallypolls the second node and confirms whether a returned status codeindicates that there has been a redirect attempt by the third node,(iii) an HTTP authentication test in which the first node periodicallypolls the second node requesting a known file and confirms whether areply seeking authentication credentials indicates that there has beenan interception or an interception attempt by the third node, (iv) atest in which the first node (a) periodically polls the second node fora static file, (b) cryptographically hashes the static file, and (c)compares the cryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographichash of a known static file such that any discrepancies between thecryptographic hashes indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (v) a communication protocoltest in which public keys utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to known public keys such that anydiscrepancies among public keys indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node, (vi) acommunication protocol test in which a cipher suite utilized bycryptographic communications involving the first node are compared to aknown cipher suite such that any discrepancies between cipher suitesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node, (vii) an HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) testin which public keys utilized by cryptographic communications involvingthe first node are compared to known public keys such that anydiscrepancies among public keys indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node, (viii) agateway fingerprint test in which unexpected changes for an InternetProtocol (IP) and a media access control (MAC) address for a routerintermediate the first node and the second node indicates that there hasbeen an interception or an interception attempt by the third node, (ix)a Time to Live (TTL) test in which values in packet traffic received bythe first node are monitored to determined if there are any values thatindicate that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node, (x) a multicast Domain Name System (mDNS) test inwhich the first node sends an mDNS request to the second node and ifresults received by the first node are compared to known Domain NameSystem (DNS) values such that any discrepancies between such valuesindicate that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node, and (xi) an update mechanism test in which thecommunications between the first node and the second node relate to anupdate of software on the first node, and executables forming part ofthe update are periodically compared against known executables such thatany discrepancies between such executables indicate that there has beenan interception or an interception attempt by the third node.

Non-transitory computer program products (i.e., physically embodiedcomputer program products) are also described that store instructions,which when executed by one or more data processors of one or morecomputing systems, cause at least one data processor to performoperations herein. Similarly, computer systems are also described thatmay include one or more data processors and memory coupled to the one ormore data processors. The memory may temporarily or permanently storeinstructions that cause at least one processor to perform one or more ofthe operations described herein. In addition, methods can be implementedby one or more data processors either within a single computing systemor distributed among two or more computing systems. Such computingsystems can be connected and can exchange data and/or commands or otherinstructions or the like via one or more connections, including but notlimited to a connection over a network (e.g., the Internet, a wirelesswide area network, a local area network, a wide area network, a wirednetwork, or the like), via a direct connection between one or more ofthe multiple computing systems, etc.

The subject matter described herein provides many technical advantages.In particular, by using a variety of test methods to detect man in themiddle attacks as provided herein, the likelihood of detecting a man inthe middle attack before the compromise of unsecured information isdrastically increased. Furthermore, by conducting such testsperiodically as provided herein, the likelihood is further increased.

The details of one or more variations of the subject matter describedherein are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the descriptionbelow. Other features and advantages of the subject matter describedherein will be apparent from the description and drawings, and from theclaims.

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a computing environment comprising aclient, an attacker, and a server;

FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating compression in the HTTP protocol

FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an MITM attack in connection withcompression in the HTTP protocol;

FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an MITM attack in connection with HTTPredirection;

FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an MITM attack in connection with HTTPauthentication;

FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an MITM attack in connection withstatic file transfer;

FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an MITM attack in connection withsecure communication protocols;

FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a client interacting with a router;

FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating an MITM attack in connection with aclient interacting with a router; and

FIG. 10 is a process flow diagram illustrating detection of an MITMattack using a plurality of MITM detection tests.

Like reference symbols in the various drawings indicate like elements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The current subject matter provides methods, systems, and architecturesfor detecting man in the middle (MITM) attacks and for taking action tocircumvent such attacks or attempted attacks. These attacks can bedetected by selectively conducting each of a plurality of MITM detectiontests to determine whether or not data communications (e.g., servicecalls, etc.) between a client (e.g., a computer, computing device,mobile phone, etc.) and a server or other computing device indicates thelikelihood of interception and/or diversion of such data communications(i.e., a redirect attempt).

Each detection test can focus on either detecting a single attack, or ondetecting a wide range of attacks by looking for unexpected responsesfrom services which otherwise would supply a predictable result. In somecases, the services queried are servers that are in place specificallyto act as predictable servers. In other cases, the services queried willnot be controlled (i.e., the servers/nodes are unknown), but areexpected to provide reliable results.

By combining these detection tests as provided herein, the likelihood ofdetecting attacks is highly increased. MITM attacks can be implementedin a wide variety of ways, and testing for them in a variety of ways asprovided herein allows for the best coverage. By doing the testcombinations on an interval (e.g., a periodic basis, a specificsequence, etc.), the detection of periodic attacks is made more likely.

In many cases, attackers will only be interested in a subset of thevictim's data, so they will only launch specific attacks. This meansthat only by testing for specific and generic attacks, can most man inthe middle attacks be detected.

The current subject matter is described in connection with anarrangement involving a client 110, an attacker 120, and a server 130which can communicate over a network 105. Each of the client 110,attacker 120, and server 130 comprise one or more programmable dataprocessors and memory for storing instructions for executed by such dataprocessor(s). Furthermore, it will be appreciated that each of theclient 110, attacker 120, or server 130 can comprise more than onecomputing device depending on the desired configuration and that theillustrations in FIGS. 1-9 are simplified to aid in the understanding ofthe current subject matter. In some cases, other intermediate networkingcomponents such as a router 140 which provides certain gateways are alsoillustrated and addressed.

The following describes sample MITM detection tests that can beimplemented singly or in combination depending on the desiredimplementation.

One such test involves HTTP compression. Compression in the HTTPprotocol has been a common occurrence for quite some time. Withreference to diagram 100 of FIG. 1, the web client 110 which supportscompression can request that the server 130 it is communicating withreturn responses with compression applied. This can be done by addingthe following HTTP header to the HTTP request:

-   -   Accept-encoding: gzip

In this situation, the server 130 must also support compression. If theremote server 130 does not support compression, it will return theresponse not compressed. If the response is compressed, the responsewill contain the following header (as well the data itself will becompressed):

-   -   Content-Encoding: gzip

With reference to diagram 300 of FIG. 3, in some cases, the attacker 120might find it simpler to handle HTTP communication that is notcompressed, and can do this simply by manipulating the HTTPcommunications to not request compressed responses. In particular, theclient 110 initially sends a request indicating that it can acceptcompressed responses. This communication is intercepted by the attacker120 that then sends a request to the server 130 removing the compressionrequest. The server 130 then sends an uncompressed response to theattacker 120 which then forwards the response (which is not compressed)to the client 110. As the client 110 needs to support non-compressedresponses as well, this technique is invisible to the victim (i.e., theclient 110).

In order to test for this technique and with reference again to diagram300 of FIG. 3, the client 110 can send an HTTP request to a known server130 which supports HTTP compression. The request sent specifies that theresults are compressed. Upon receiving the response, a check is made atthe client 110 to confirm that the response was indeed compressed, andthat the content received is as expected. If the check indicates thatthe response was not compressed, then it can be determined that there isa likelihood of an interception or an interception attempt andcorrective action can be taken.

The check by this detection test can be done periodically by the client110, requesting that the server 130 return compressed responsescontaining a known file. Both the integrity of the file being requestedand the compressed state it is expected to be received in are checked.The integrity of the file can be determined in a variety of ways. In onevariation, cryptographic hashing mechanisms can be utilized to create ashort sequence of bytes which represent the file. By storing thecryptographic hash of the file being downloaded from server 130 in thecode of client 110, one can recompute the cryptographic hash andcompare. If these strings of bytes are equal, then the files areconsidered to be the same in reference to the cryptographic hashingmechanism. Due to possible ineffectiveness of these cryptographichashing mechanisms, the size of file to be downloaded from sever 130 canalso be stored in the code of server 110. Once the file is downloaded,comparing both the file size and cryptographic hash of the downloadedfile with the values stored in the code of client 110, the difficultylevel for an attacker to bypass this integrity check is extremelydifficult.

HTTP decompression is an option of a public MITM tool named “MITMProxy”.In MITMProxy, the flag to enable the HTTP decompression is “-z” or“-anticomp”. The purpose of this flag is to make it simpler for anattacker 120, which runs MITMProxy, to analyze the network traffic ofthe client 110. When MITMProxy on attacker 120 receives an HTTP request(while it is currently launching a man in the middle attack), it checksto see if there is a request for a compressed response by checking forthe “Accept-encoding: gzip” header. If it observes this header, it willremove the header in hopes that the remote server 130 will then notreturn compressed information. To reiterate, the HTTP request fromclient 110 with the compression header would be intercepted by attacker120. That header would then be removed by attacker 120 which thenforwards the request to server 130. The response from server 130 ishandled by attacker 120, which forwards the result to client 110 notcompressed.

With reference to diagram 400 of FIG. 4, another type of test involvesHTTP redirection. In the HTTP protocol, there are a number of mechanismsto request that a client 110 search in another location for the resourceit is requesting. While this behavior on its own is benign, it can beabused in a variety of ways. Furthermore, if this redirection isrequested when it is not expected, it is an indication that the HTTPtraffic is being tampered in some way.

With reference again to diagram 400 of FIG. 4, this check can beconducted periodically by requesting a file from a testing HTTP server130. The HTTP client 110 used to conduct the test checks the HTTP statuscode of the response in order to determine if there has been aninterception or an interception attempt. If the resulting status code isa status code which is indicative of redirection (codes include, forexample, 301, 302, 303, 307), a redirection attempt can be reportedand/or correction of action can be taken. The integrity of the datarequested can also be tested, as some redirection methods may reside inthe HTML code being processed, and not at the HTTP protocol level.

The redirect server 120 in association with the redirect to SMB (servermessage block) vulnerability can conduct this attack. When victims ofMITM attacks are forced to connect to the redirect server 120 over HTTP,they are supplied with a HTTP status code which requests they connect toan SMB server (not shown). This attack is done to steal victimcredentials. The attack is done by setting the HTTP response status codeto 302, and setting the “location” HTTP response header to theattacker's SMB server.

Another type of test involves HTTP authentication. With reference todiagram 500 of FIG. 5, in the HTTP protocol, there are mechanisms torequest that the client 110 supply some form of authentication in orderto access the requested resource. The attacker 120 will often abuse thisfunctionality in order to trick either the user or their computer toauthenticate in a way which would allow for the attacker 120 to obtainthe credentials. When requesting a known resource that should notrequest authentication, if authentication is requested, it is anindication that the HTTP traffic is being tampered in some manner.Again, unauthorized codes can indicate that there is a likelihood of aninterception or an interception attempt having occurred so thatreporting and/or corrective action can take place.

With reference to again to diagram 500 of FIG. 5, this check can beconducted by periodically requesting a file from the testing server 130.The HTTP response status code is checked for the forbidden response code(403). If this response code is received by the client 110, theinterception or an interception attempt is confirmed. In the absence ofthe forbidden response, the integrity of the downloaded file is checkedfor good measure.

Another type of test involves static file transfer. With reference todiagram 600 of FIG. 6, when the client 110 requests a static file overHTTP or another file transfer protocol, if the file contents are knownbeforehand, the file being downloaded can be compared to the expectedfile. If an attacker 120 modifies or replaces the contents, thecomparison will allow for identification of the modification by theclient 110. Any modification indicates tampering. This static filetransfer test can be done with most all file types, including but notlimited to: WINDOWS Portable Executable (PE), HTML, CSS, JAVASCRIPT,PDF, OFFICE documents, and LINUX Executables (ELF).

With reference again to diagram 600 of FIG. 6, the check can be simplyconducted by preconfiguring an application on the client 110 withcryptographic hashes of the files being requested over HTTP. When thefiles are downloaded, the files downloaded are additionallycryptographically hashed, and the resulting hashes received by theclient 110 (either from the attacker 120 or the server 130 depending onthe situation) can be compared with the preconfigured hashes. If thereis a discrepancy, the file has been modified and it can be determinedthat a man in the middle attack is in progress. Multiple cryptographichashes can be used in order to avoid advanced attacks from bypassingthis integrity check.

The Backdoor Factory Proxy (BDFProxy) is a proxy that can be used duringman in the middle attacks in order to modify executable files beingdownloaded from a man in the middle communication channel. When itdetects an executable being downloaded, it downloads the executableitself, then runs Backdoor Factory (a tool to infect executables withmalicious code), then supplies the modified executable to the victimrequesting the original executable. This modified executable would havedifferent cryptographic hashes than those of the expected file, andwould result in detection by these checks (in particular those describedabove).

Another type of test involves SSL/TLS communication integrity (asillustrated in diagram 700 of FIG. 7). In SSL and TLS, there aremechanisms to confirm the integrity of the communications. By usingthese cryptographic measures, applications can determine if a thirdparty is manipulating the communication channel. These integrity checksare designed to confirm the data of the SSL/TLS stream itself, but itcan also be used as an MITM detection test. In order to do this, anumber of SSL/TLS connections out to the remote server 130 by the client110 can be created which use a public key known to the client 110. Whenthe SSL/TLS connections have been confirmed as valid, it can be furtherconfirmed that the public key used is the one expected (with anydiscrepancies indicating the likelihood of an interception or aninterception attempt).

Many man in the middle attacks on SSL/TLS connections rely on being ableto supply a different public key. For instance, one method causes theattacker 120 to act as an SSL/TLS server, decrypt the traffic, tampersit, and then open up a new SSL/TLS communication channel with the server120 with which the client 110 wished to communicate. The attacker 120must have their own public/private key pair in order to act as theserver 130, which could not be the same as the expected key pair unlessthe attackers had mathematical computation ability which is theorized asnear to impossible.

Some other attacks on SSL/TLS rely on modifying the accepted ciphersuites (the symmetric cryptographic methods used). By additionallyensuring that the cipher suite used for the communication is theexpected method, an MITM detection test can further test for man in themiddle attacks on these encrypted communication channels. During earlycommunications of the SSL/TLS protocol, the acceptable cipher suites forthe client 110 and server 130 can be communicated in plaintext. In someversions of these protocols, an attacker 120 can modify these ciphersuites in order to ensure that weak cipher suites are used. Thevalidation process can be done by client 110 expecting a specific listof acceptable cipher suites from server 130, and comparing them to theresults from a connection to server 130.

Another testing variation relates to HTTP Strict Transport Security(HSTS) preload testing. HSTS preload is a technology developed toconfirm the signers of the SSL/TLS keys of major web sites are asexpected. This same method can be implemented as an MITM detection test.HSTS depends on the not the certificate remaining the same, but insteadthe signing certificate remaining valid. The validation check for thisdepends on a list correlating internet domains with the certificatesigners for these domains. These signing certificates can be confirmedby comparison of key components of the certificate, then basic SSL/TLSsigning checks are done for the entire certificate chain.

In addition, in cases in which the device conducting these tests doesnot change to different networks commonly, there are some methods whichcan be deployed which can be far more sensitive to changes. Thesemethods would be less effective when changing networks, as an expectedbaseline for these tests are required. This does not make them unviablefor mobile devices, but they are more effective for unchanging networks.

Many man in the middle attacks focus on intercepting networkcommunications with the network gateway in order to obtain informationbeing sent to the interne. If an attacker has managed to convince thedevice running these tests to route its traffic through the attacker120, the attacker 120 is then the gateway. It is then likely that thereis some difference between the real gateway and the attacker 120. Thesedifferences can be identified by periodically fingerprinting the gatewayon a variety of aspects.

With reference to diagram 800 of FIG. 8, for instance, having the client110 periodically check for the MAC address of the IP address of thegateway could detect ARP Poisoning attacks. If the MAC address for thegateway IP changes, without structural changes to the network by anadministrator, the client 110 can determine that it is likely that anattacker 120 is conducting a man in the middle attack.

With reference to diagram 900 of FIG. 9, to implement these checks, anadministrator must notify the client 110 when their networkconfiguration is considered static in the near future. At this point,the client 110 then gathers both the IP address and MAC address of thenetwork gateway. By storing both these values, the client 110 candetermine if either the gateway IP or the gateway MAC address is everchanged, and can alert of any changes being made. The IP address changecan be detected by periodically checking the local system's networkrouting table, and the MAC address can be checked by periodicallyrequesting over ARP for the gateway IP address to be resolved.

There are multiple network protocols which have a field designated asTTL, or Time to Live. This value decrements when the packet istransferred over a routing device (by the routing device itself). Whilemany attackers will not decrement this value, some will. If an expectedTTL value is determined, it can be periodically tested for any changes.If any changes occur without an administrator modifying the network, itis likely the result of a man in the middle attack.

The TTL values can be checked by the client 110 conducting what issometimes referred to as a “traceroute” to the target server 130 when ithas a static location. The traceroute method sends IP packets withincreasing TTL values (from 0) until the packets reach the targetdestination (i.e., the server 130). This arrangement allows foridentification of the routing devices in-between the client 110 and thetarget server 130, as when the TTL is exhausted on each packet, therouters 140 (if following protocol) then respond with a packetindicating that the TTL was exhausted. If more or fewer router hops aredetected when attempting to reach the target server 130, it isindicative of a modification of the network structure or a man in themiddle attack.

Some of the MITM detection tests can detect Address Resolution Protocol(ARP) cache deviations. ARP cache poisoning works by sending out ARPrequests or responses which associate another computer's IP address withthe MAC address of the attacker 120. This leads to local network trafficto be routed through the attacker 120, allowing for the attacked tocontrol the traffic as they wish. For this attack to be effective, itmust override a valid IP address's value in the ARP cache of the client110. If the ARP cache is regularly monitored for changes on a networkwhich has static assignment of IP addresses, and duplication of MAC toIP address association can indicate ARP cache poisoning. This detectionmechanism is a broader application of a Gateway Fingerprintingtechnique, but requires a less dynamic network.

In order to run these tests, the client 110 only needs to query thelocal system's ARP table for any changes. While not all ARP tablechanges indicate an ARP cache poisoning, ARP table changes for certainIP addresses which should remain static are noted. With specific IPaddresses on the local network set to alarm when the IP and MACrelationship changes, ARP cache poisoning attacks to specific criticallocal network resources may be detected. By logging all ARP tablechanges an administrator can later inspect them in the case that ARPcache poisoning is detected, or any other compromise.

In some cases, man in the middle attack methods themselves can bedetected (as opposed to the tampering of data). For example, Domain NameSystem (DNS) requests often occur directly before connections to the IPaddresses supplied by the response to the DNS request. If the attacker120 is able to modify the results of the DNS request, it can hijack thesubsequent connection. The test for such an attack can be based on anumber of DNS requests with known results. By comparing the results fromthe network and the known results, the client can determined there wastampering based on identified discrepancies.

This test is done by making a DNS request for a static DNS entry (onethat will not change for the foreseeable future). The client needs toknow the expected result for this DNS request in order to compare theresult to. If a response is returned that does not match the expectedresult, a man in the middle attack is likely occurring.

Multicast DNS (mDNS) is a local network DNS protocol. It operates bysending a broadcast to the local network, and waits for responses fromany mDNS servers on the local network. The attack on mDNS operatessimilar to the attack on DNS, supplying false results in order to hijackthe resulting connection. In order to detect this attack, an mDNSrequest is sent to the local network. If any response that conflictswith the known DNS values returns, tampering is detected and appropriatereporting/action can be taken in regard to such interception orinterception attempt.

Over the years, there have been many applications known to havevulnerabilities which required or were enhanced with man in the middlecapabilities. It stands to reason that an attacker launching a man inthe middle attack would be looking for these specific vulnerabilities inorder to gain further access to their victims. One example is updatemechanisms. In many cases, update mechanisms use both unencrypted andunauthenticated communication channels, allowing for an attacker tosimply replace the updated executables with their own maliciousapplication, leading to the victim running the attacker's updater. Byboth enumerating the known vulnerable update mechanisms and emulatingtheir update checks, attacks can be identified on specific updatemechanisms.

The devices most likely to be hit by man in the middle attacks aremobile computing devices (e.g., mobile phones, laptops, tablets, etc.).These devices regularly connect to third party wireless networks, andare almost always on networks provided by wireless carriers. There arevarious known methods for attackers to take control over both theconnection to the wireless carrier and to WiFi networks. Even the mostparanoid user has no sure fire way to avoid being the victim of a man inthe middle attack short of turning off all communications to and fromthe device.

By running a persistent service on mobile devices (which act as theclient 110) to test for a wide range of man in the middle attacks, theseattacks can be detected before information is stolen from the networkcommunications. Upon detection of the man in the middle attack, avariety of actions could be taken. For instance, if the attack isdetected on a WiFi network, the network can be disconnected. If theattack is detected over the connection to the wireless carrier, thedevice can be placed into “airplane mode”, disabling communications.

Additionally, if disconnection is not desired, alternative strategiescan be used. For instance, a broadcast can be sent by the man in themiddle detection application (on the client 110) to other applicationsto disable any authenticated requests. This can require support by themobile operating system and from the applications handlingauthentication. Alternatively, the operating system can be requested torequire user authorization with a warning in order to interact with thenetwork.

This functionality is useful for “legitimate” man in the middlesituations, where managed third party networks require additionalinformation from the user before being allowed to access the internet.For instance, it is common for WiFi on airplanes to request users to paybefore accessing the Internet. It is important for credentials to not betransferred in insecure ways, as these types of networks are primeattack grounds for man in the middle attacks. Users pay less attentionto discrepancies and slow connections, attackers easily join the sameunencrypted networks, and there are a high number of targets in a smallarea.

Network guest appliances also pose security risks. If an appliance actsas a potential guest on a publicly accessible network, it can act as anearly warning sign that an attacker is attempting to attack other userson the same network. This use case can be deployed by administrators ofthese publicly accessible networks, or additionally utilized by securityconscious guests. The detection of these attacks could lead to thenetworks to enable more verbose logging mechanisms, allowing for furthercooperation with law enforcement, or simply to ban the attacker fromusing their services in the future.

Moreover, on desktop computers, which rarely change the networks theyare on, much more specific detection mechanisms can be used. Thedetection tests with regard to static networks provided above alsodirectly apply to desktops. When used with desktops, the entire networkenvironment is a canary for man in the middle attacks, and can increasesecurity of the network by reporting back to a central location.

Servers, similar to desktops, are configured in predictableenvironments. This allows for servers to use the static networkmechanisms provided above. Servers tend to be of higher value toorganizations, and attackers, than desktop computers. For this reason,increased protections are necessary.

The same functionality used to determine if there is malicious man inthe middle attacks can be used to detect that deliberate and benign manin the middle attacks are properly deployed. For instance, ifunauthenticated users are restricted from internet access on a network,MITM canary tests can be used to determine if the tests which leave thelocal network fail. If a test that leaves the local network passes, thenit is possible to exfiltrate information. For example, it is common forWiFi on airplanes to restrict internet access to users who pay foraccess. If running a MITM canary test on the WiFi without purchasing aninternet connection, one will see that it is common for DNS query teststo pass, meaning that an internet connection could be established usingDNS as a transport method.

If multiple instances of client 110 all report to a central location, agreat deal of information on man in the middle attacks could begathered. With this information, commonly attacked networks can beidentified and investigated. Additionally, MITM attacks that affectentire service providers can be quickly identified and resolved beforewide spread infections become an issue would could compromise thestability of the Internet. Gathering such information and potentiallywarning users of dangerous networks before attacks are launched couldallow the users to avoid putting themselves at unneeded risk.

FIG. 10 is a process flow diagram 1000 in which, at 1010, each of aplurality of different man-in-the middle (MITM) detection tests areinitiated (in parallel, in sequence, or a combination of both, etc.) todetermine whether communications between first and second nodes of acomputing network are likely to have been subject to an interception oran interception attempt by a third node. Thereafter, at 1020, it isdetermined that at least one of the tests indicate that thecommunications are likely to have been intercepted by a third node. Suchdetermination can be based, for example, on whether an actual resultreceived by the first node matches an expected result (based, forexample, on historical data) from the second node. Subsequently, at1030, data characterizing the determination can be provided (e.g.,displayed, loaded into memory, persisted/stored, transmitted to a remotecomputing system/node, etc.).

One or more aspects or features of the subject matter described hereincan be realized in digital electronic circuitry, integrated circuitry,specially designed application specific integrated circuits (ASICs),field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) computer hardware, firmware,software, and/or combinations thereof. These various aspects or featurescan include implementation in one or more computer programs that areexecutable and/or interpretable on a programmable system including atleast one programmable processor, which can be special or generalpurpose, coupled to receive data and instructions from, and to transmitdata and instructions to, a storage system, at least one input device,and at least one output device. The programmable system or computingsystem may include clients and servers. A client and server aregenerally remote from each other and typically interact through acommunication network. The relationship of client and server arises byvirtue of computer programs running on the respective computers andhaving a client-server relationship to each other.

These computer programs, which can also be referred to as programs,software, software applications, applications, components, or code,include machine instructions for a programmable processor, and can beimplemented in a high-level procedural language, an object-orientedprogramming language, a functional programming language, a logicalprogramming language, and/or in assembly/machine language. As usedherein, the term “machine-readable medium” refers to any computerprogram product, apparatus and/or device, such as for example magneticdiscs, optical disks, memory, and Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs),used to provide machine instructions and/or data to a programmableprocessor, including a machine-readable medium that receives machineinstructions as a machine-readable signal. The term “machine-readablesignal” refers to any signal used to provide machine instructions and/ordata to a programmable processor. The machine-readable medium can storesuch machine instructions non-transitorily, such as for example as woulda non-transient solid-state memory or a magnetic hard drive or anyequivalent storage medium. The machine-readable medium can alternativelyor additionally store such machine instructions in a transient manner,such as for example as would a processor cache or other random accessmemory associated with one or more physical processor cores.

In the descriptions above and in the claims, phrases such as “at leastone of” or “one or more of” may occur followed by a conjunctive list ofelements or features. The term “and/or” may also occur in a list of twoor more elements or features. Unless otherwise implicitly or explicitlycontradicted by the context in which it is used, such a phrase isintended to mean any of the listed elements or features individually orany of the recited elements or features in combination with any of theother recited elements or features. For example, the phrases “at leastone of A and B;” “one or more of A and B;” and “A and/or B” are eachintended to mean “A alone, B alone, or A and B together.” A similarinterpretation is also intended for lists including three or more items.For example, the phrases “at least one of A, B, and C;” “one or more ofA, B, and C;” and “A, B, and/or C” are each intended to mean “A alone, Balone, C alone, A and B together, A and C together, B and C together, orA and B and C together.” In addition, use of the term “based on,” aboveand in the claims is intended to mean, “based at least in part on,” suchthat an unrecited feature or element is also permissible.

The subject matter described herein can be embodied in systems,apparatus, methods, and/or articles depending on the desiredconfiguration. The implementations set forth in the foregoingdescription do not represent all implementations consistent with thesubject matter described herein. Instead, they are merely some examplesconsistent with aspects related to the described subject matter.Although a few variations have been described in detail above, othermodifications or additions are possible. In particular, further featuresand/or variations can be provided in addition to those set forth herein.For example, the implementations described above can be directed tovarious combinations and subcombinations of the disclosed featuresand/or combinations and subcombinations of several further featuresdisclosed above. In addition, the logic flows depicted in theaccompanying figures and/or described herein do not necessarily requirethe particular order shown, or sequential order, to achieve desirableresults. Other implementations may be within the scope of the followingclaims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method comprising:initiating, by a first node of a networked computing environment, eachof a plurality of different types of man-in-the middle (MITM) detectiontests to determine whether communications between first and second nodesof a computing network have been subject to an interception by a thirdnode, wherein each of the different types of MITM detection tests looksfor an unexpected response received from a service that would otherwiserespond with an expected response; determining, by the first node, thatat least one of the tests indicate that the communications have beenintercepted by a third node; and providing, by the first node, datacharacterizing the determination; wherein at least one of the MITMdetection tests is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) compression testin which the first node periodically requests that an uncompressed knownfile be returned compressed and replies are checked to confirm whetherthe response includes a compressed version of the known file, whereinthe compressed version of the known file has an expected integrity andcompression state.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the determiningcompares expected results received by the first node with actual resultsreceived by the first node when communicating or attempting tocommunicate with the second node.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein thefirst node is a client and the second node is a server, and the MITMdetection tests are executed at the client.
 4. The method of claim 1,wherein the first node is a client and the second node is a server, andthe MITM detection tests are executed at a fourth node remote from thefirst, second, and third nodes.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein atleast one of the MITM detection tests is an HTTP interception test inwhich the first node periodically polls the second node and confirmswhether a returned status code indicates that there has been a redirectattempt by the third node.
 6. The method of claim 5, wherein as part ofthe HTTP interception test the integrity of the underlying data is alsotested in order to determine whether there is an indication of aninterception attempt by the third node.
 7. The method of claim 1,wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is an HTTPauthentication test in which the first node periodically polls thesecond node requesting a known file and confirms whether a reply seekingauthentication credentials indicates that there has been an interceptionor an interception attempt by the third node.
 8. The method of claim 1,wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests includes the first node(i) periodically polling the second node for a static file, (ii)cryptographically hashing the static file, and (iii) comparing thecryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographic hash of a knownstatic file such that any discrepancies between the cryptographic hashesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of theMITM detection tests is a communication protocol test in which publickeys utilized by cryptographic communications involving the first nodeare compared to known public keys such that any discrepancies amongpublic keys indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 10. The method of claim 1,wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is a communicationprotocol test in which a cipher suite utilized by cryptographiccommunications involving the first node are compared to a known ciphersuite such that any discrepancies between cipher suites indicates thatthere has been an interception or an interception attempt by the thirdnode.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the MITMdetection tests is an HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) test inwhich public keys utilized by cryptographic communications involving thefirst node are compared to known public keys such that any discrepanciesamong public keys indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 12. The method of claim 1,wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is a gatewayfingerprint test in which unexpected changes for an Internet Protocol(IP) and a media access control (MAC) address for a router intermediatethe first node and the second node indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node.
 13. Themethod of claim 1, wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is aTime to Live (TTY) test in which values in packet traffic received bythe first node are monitored to determined if there are any values thatindicate that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node.
 14. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one ofthe MITM detection tests is a multicast Domain Name System (mDNS) testin which the first node sends an mDNS request to the second node and ifresults received by the first node are compared to known Domain NameSystem (DNS) values such that any discrepancies between such valuesindicate that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node.
 15. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one ofthe MITM detection tests is an update mechanism test in which thecommunications between the first node and the second node relate to anupdate of software on the first node, and executables forming part ofthe update are periodically compared against known executables such thatany discrepancies between such executables indicate that there has beenan interception or an interception attempt by the third node.
 16. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the first node is a mobile computing deviceand the method further comprises: placing the first node into anairplane mode upon determination of an occurrence of an interception oran interception attempt.
 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the firstnode is a mobile computing device communicating over a wireless networkand the method further comprises: sending, by the first node, abroadcast to other nodes on the wireless network indicating that aninterception or an interception attempt has occurred on the wirelessnetwork.
 18. The method of claim 1, wherein providing data comprises atleast one of: displaying the data, loading the data into memory, storingthe data, or transmitting the data to a remote computing system.
 19. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different MITM detectiontests comprises at least two tests selected from a group comprising: (i)the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) compression test, (ii) an HTTPinterception test in which the first node periodically polls the secondnode and confirms whether a returned status code indicates that therehas been a redirect attempt by the third node, (iii) an HTTPauthentication test in which the first node periodically polls thesecond node requesting a known file and confirms whether a reply seekingauthentication credentials indicates that there has been an interceptionor an interception attempt by the third node, (iv) a test in which thefirst node (a) periodically polls the second node for a static file, (b)cryptographically hashes the static file, and (c) compares thecryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographic hash of a knownstatic file such that any discrepancies between the cryptographic hashesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node, (v) a communication protocol test in which publickeys utilized by cryptographic communications involving the first nodeare compared to known public keys such that any discrepancies amongpublic keys indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (vi) a communication protocoltest in which a cipher suite utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to a known cipher suite such thatany discrepancies between cipher suites indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node, (vii) an HTTPStrict Transport Security (HSTS) test in which public keys utilized bycryptographic communications involving the first node are compared toknown public keys such that any discrepancies among public keysindicates that there has been a an interception or an interceptionattempt by the third node, (viii) a gateway fingerprint test in whichunexpected changes for an Internet Protocol (IP) and a media accesscontrol (MAC) address for a router intermediate the first node and thesecond node indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (ix) a Time to Live (TTY) testin which values in packet traffic received by the first node aremonitored to determined if there are any values that indicate that therehas been an interception or an interception attempt by the third node,(x) a multicast Domain Name System (mDNS) test in which the first nodesends an mDNS request to the second node and if results received by thefirst node are compared to known Domain Name System (DNS) values suchthat any discrepancies between such values indicate that there has beenan interception or an interception attempt by the third node, and (xi)an update mechanism test in which the communications between the firstnode and the second node relate to an update of software on the firstnode, and executables forming part of the update are periodicallycompared against known executables such that any discrepancies betweensuch executables indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 20. The method of claim 1,wherein the plurality of different MITM detection tests comprises atleast three tests selected from a group comprising: (i) the HypertextTransfer Protocol (HTTP) compression test, (ii) an HTTP interceptiontest in which the first node periodically polls the second node andconfirms whether a returned status code indicates that there has been aredirect attempt by the third node, (iii) an HTTP authentication test inwhich the first node periodically polls the second node requesting aknown file and confirms whether a reply seeking authenticationcredentials indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (iv) a test in which the firstnode (i) periodically polls the second node for a static file, (ii)cryptographically hashes the static file, and (iii) compares thecryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographic hash of a knownstatic file such that any discrepancies between the cryptographic hashesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node, (v) a communication protocol test in which publickeys utilized by cryptographic communications involving the first nodeare compared to known public keys such that any discrepancies amongpublic keys indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (vi) a communication protocoltest in which a cipher suite utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to a known cipher suite such thatany discrepancies between cipher suites indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node, (vii) an HTTPStrict Transport Security (HSTS) test in which public keys utilized bycryptographic communications involving the first node are compared toknown public keys such that any discrepancies among public keysindicates that there has been a an interception or an interceptionattempt by the third node, (viii) a gateway fingerprint test in whichunexpected changes for an Internet Protocol (IP) and a media accesscontrol (MAC) address for a router intermediate the first node and thesecond node indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (ix) a Time to Live (TTY) testin which values in packet traffic received by the first node aremonitored to determined if there are any values that indicate that therehas been an interception or an interception attempt by the third node,(x) a multicast Domain Name System (mDNS) test in which the first nodesends an mDNS request to the second node and if results received by thefirst node are compared to known Domain Name System (DNS) values suchthat any discrepancies between such values indicate that there has beenan interception or an interception attempt by the third node, and (xi)an update mechanism test in which the communications between the firstnode and the second node relate to an update of software on the firstnode, and executables forming part of the update are periodicallycompared against known executables such that any discrepancies betweensuch executables indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 21. The method of claim 1,wherein the different types of MITM detection tests are initiated atpre-defined intervals and according to a specified sequence.
 22. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the expected integrity of the compressedversion of the file is determined by (i) comparing a hash of thereceived compressed version of the file with a stored hash of the knownfile and (ii) comparing a file size of the received compressed versionof the file with a stored file size of a compressed version of the knownfile.
 23. A system comprising: at least one data processor; and memorystoring instructions which, when executed by the at least one dataprocessor, result in operations comprising: initiating, by a first nodeof a networked computing environment, each of a plurality of differenttypes of man-in-the middle (MITM) detection tests to determine whethercommunications between first and second nodes of a computing networkhave been subject to an interception by a third node, wherein each ofthe different types of MITM detection tests looks for an unexpectedresponse received from a service that would otherwise respond with anexpected response; determining, by the first node, that at least one ofthe tests indicate that the communications have been intercepted by athird node; and providing, by the first node, data characterizing thedetermination; wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is aHypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) compression test in which the firstnode periodically requests that an uncompressed known file be returnedcompressed and replies are checked to confirm whether the responseincludes a compressed version of the known file, wherein the compressedversion of the known file has an expected integrity and compressionstate.
 24. The system of claim 23, wherein the determining comparesexpected results received by the first node with actual results receivedby the first node when communicating or attempting to communicate withthe second node.
 25. The system of claim 23, wherein the first node is aclient and the second node is a server, and the MITM detection tests areexecuted at the client.
 26. The system of claim 23, wherein the firstnode is a client and the second node is a server, and the MITM detectiontests are executed at a fourth node remote from the first, second, andthird nodes.
 27. The system of claim 23, wherein the expected integrityof the compressed version of the file is determined by (i) comparing ahash of the received compressed version of the file with a stored hashof the known file and (ii) comparing a file size of the receivedcompressed version of the file with a stored file size of a compressedversion of the known file.
 28. The system of claim 23, wherein at leastone of the MITM detection tests is an HTTP interception test in whichthe first node periodically polls the second node and confirms whether areturned status code indicates that there has been a redirect attempt bythe third node.
 29. The system of claim 28, wherein as part of the HTTPinterception test the integrity of the underlying data is also test inorder to determine whether there is an indication of an attempt by thethird node.
 30. The system of claim 23, wherein at least one of the MITMdetection tests is an HTTP authentication test in which the first nodeperiodically polls the second node requesting a known file and confirmswhether a reply seeking authentication credentials indicates that therehas been an interception or an interception attempt by the third node.31. The system of claim 23, wherein at least one of the MITM detectiontests includes the first node (i) periodically polling the second nodefor a static file, (ii) cryptographically hashing the static file, and(iii) comparing the cryptographically hashed static file to acryptographic hash of a known static file such that any discrepanciesbetween the cryptographic hashes indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node.
 32. Thesystem of claim 23, wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests isa communication protocol test in which public keys utilized bycryptographic communications involving the first node are compared toknown public keys such that any discrepancies among public keysindicates that there has been an interception of an interception attemptby the third node.
 33. The system of claim 23, wherein at least one ofthe MITM detection tests is a communication protocol test in which acipher suite utilized by cryptographic communications involving thefirst node are compared to a known cipher suite such that anydiscrepancies between cipher suites indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node.
 34. Thesystem of claim 23, wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests isan HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) test in which public keysutilized by cryptographic communications involving the first node arecompared to known public keys such that any discrepancies among publickeys indicates that there has been an interception or an interceptionattempt by the third node.
 35. The system of claim 23, wherein at leastone of the MITM detection tests is a gateway fingerprint test in whichunexpected changes for an Internet Protocol (IP) and a media accesscontrol (MAC) address for a router intermediate the first node and thesecond node indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 36. The system of claim 23,wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is a Time to Live (TTY)test in which values in packet traffic received by the first node aremonitored to determined if there are any values that indicate that therehas been an interception or an interception attempt by the third node.37. The system of claim 23, wherein at least one of the MITM detectiontests is a multicast Domain Name System (mDNS) test in which the firstnode sends an mDNS request to the second node and if results received bythe first node are compared to known Domain Name System (DNS) valuessuch that any discrepancies between such values indicate that there hasbeen an interception or an interception attempt by the third node. 38.The system of claim 23, wherein at least one of the MITM detection testsis an update mechanism test in which the communications between thefirst node and the second node relate to an update of software on thefirst node, and executables forming part of the update are periodicallycompared against known executables such that any discrepancies betweensuch executables indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 39. The system of claim 23,wherein the first node is a mobile computing device and the operationsfurther comprise: placing the first node into an airplane mode upondetermination of an occurrence of an interception or an interceptionattempt.
 40. The system of claim 23, wherein the first node is a mobilecomputing device communicating over a wireless network and theoperations further comprise: sending, by the first node, a broadcast toother nodes on the wireless network indicating that an interception oran interception attempt has occurred on the wireless network.
 41. Thesystem of claim 23, wherein providing data comprises at least one of:displaying the data, loading the data into memory, storing the data, ortransmitting the data to a remote computing system.
 42. The system ofclaim 23, wherein the plurality of different MITM detection testscomprises at least two tests selected from a group comprising: (i) theHypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) compression test, (ii) an HTTPinterception test in which the first node periodically polls the secondnode and confirms whether a returned status code indicates that therehas been a redirect attempt by the third node, (iii) an HTTPauthentication test in which the first node periodically polls thesecond node requesting a known file and confirms whether a reply seekingauthentication credentials indicates that there has been an interceptionor an interception attempt by the third node, (iv) a test in which thefirst node (a) periodically polls the second node for a static file, (b)cryptographically hashes the static file, and (c) compares thecryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographic hash of a knownstatic file such that any discrepancies between the cryptographic hashesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node, (v) a communication protocol test in which publickeys utilized by cryptographic communications involving the first nodeare compared to known public keys such that any discrepancies amongpublic keys indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (vi) a communication protocoltest in which a cipher suite utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to a known cipher suite such thatany discrepancies between cipher suites indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node, (vii) an HTTPStrict Transport Security (HSTS) test in which public keys utilized bycryptographic communications involving the first node are compared toknown public keys such that any discrepancies among public keysindicates that there has been a an interception or an interceptionattempt by the third node, (viii) a gateway fingerprint test in whichunexpected changes for an Internet Protocol (IP) and a media accesscontrol (MAC) address for a router intermediate the first node and thesecond node indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (ix) a Time to Live (TTY) testin which values in packet traffic received by the first node aremonitored to determined if there are any values that indicate that therehas been an interception or an interception attempt by the third node,(x) a multicast Domain Name System (mDNS) test in which the first nodesends an mDNS request to the second node and if results received by thefirst node are compared to known Domain Name System (DNS) values suchthat any discrepancies between such values indicate that there has beenan interception or an interception attempt by the third node, and (xi)an update mechanism test in which the communications between the firstnode and the second node relate to an update of software on the firstnode, and executables forming part of the update are periodicallycompared against known executables such that any discrepancies betweensuch executables indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 43. The system of claim 23,wherein the plurality of different MITM detection tests comprises atleast three tests selected from a group comprising: (i) the HypertextTransfer Protocol (HTTP) compression test, (ii) an HTTP interceptiontest in which the first node periodically polls the second node andconfirms whether a returned status code indicates that there has been aredirect attempt by the third node, (iii) an HTTP authentication test inwhich the first node periodically polls the second node requesting aknown file and confirms whether a reply seeking authenticationcredentials indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (iv) a test in which the firstnode (i) periodically polls the second node for a static file, (ii)cryptographically hashes the static file, and (iii) compares thecryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographic hash of a knownstatic file such that any discrepancies between the cryptographic hashesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node, (v) a communication protocol test in which publickeys utilized by cryptographic communications involving the first nodeare compared to known public keys such that any discrepancies amongpublic keys indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (vi) a communication protocoltest in which a cipher suite utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to a known cipher suite such thatany discrepancies between cipher suites indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node, (vii) an HTTPStrict Transport Security (HSTS) test in which public keys utilized bycryptographic communications involving the first node are compared toknown public keys such that any discrepancies among public keysindicates that there has been a an interception or an interceptionattempt by the third node, (viii) a gateway fingerprint test in whichunexpected changes for an Internet Protocol (IP) and a media accesscontrol (MAC) address for a router intermediate the first node and thesecond node indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (ix) a Time to Live (TTY) testin which values in packet traffic received by the first node aremonitored to determined if there are any values that indicate that therehas been an interception or an interception attempt by the third node,(x) a multicast Domain Name System (mDNS) test in which the first nodesends an mDNS request to the second node and if results received by thefirst node are compared to known Domain Name System (DNS) values suchthat any discrepancies between such values indicate that there has beenan interception or an interception attempt by the third node, and (xi)an update mechanism test in which the communications between the firstnode and the second node relate to an update of software on the firstnode, and executables forming part of the update are periodicallycompared against known executables such that any discrepancies betweensuch executables indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 44. The system of claim 23,wherein the different types of MITM detection tests are initiated atpre-defined intervals and according to a specified sequence.
 45. Anon-transitory computer program product storing instructions which, whenexecuted by at least one data processor forming part of at least onecomputing device, result in operations comprising: initiating, by afirst node of a networked computing environment, each of a plurality ofdifferent types of man-in-the middle (MITM) detection tests to determinewhether communications between first and second nodes of a computingnetwork have been subject to an interception by a third node, whereineach of the different types of MITM detection tests looks for anunexpected response received from a service that would otherwise respondwith an expected response; determining, by the first node, that at leastone of the tests indicate that the communications have been interceptedby a third node; and providing, by the first node, data characterizingthe determination; wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is aHypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) compression test in which the firstnode periodically requests that an uncompressed known file be returnedcompressed and replies are checked to confirm whether the responseincludes a compressed version of the known file, wherein the compressedversion of the known file has an expected integrity and compressionstate.
 46. The computer program product of claim 45, wherein thedetermining compares expected results received by the first node withactual results received by the first node when communicating orattempting to communicate with the second node.
 47. The computer programproduct of claim 45, wherein the first node is a client and the secondnode is a server, and the MITM detection tests are executed at theclient.
 48. The computer program product of claim 45, wherein the firstnode is a client and the second node is a server, and the MITM detectiontests are executed at a fourth node remote from the first, second, andthird nodes.
 49. The computer program product of claim 45, wherein theexpected integrity of the compressed version of the file is determinedby (i) comparing a hash of the received compressed version of the filewith a stored hash of the known file and (ii) comparing a file size ofthe received compressed version of the file with a stored file size of acompressed version of the known file.
 50. The computer program productof claim 45, wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is an HTTPinterception test in which the first node periodically polls the secondnode and confirms whether a returned status code indicates that therehas been a redirect attempt by the third node.
 51. The computer programproduct of claim 50, wherein as part of the HTTP interception test theintegrity of the underlying data is also tested in order to determinewhether there is an indication of an interception attempt by the thirdnode.
 52. The computer program product of claim 45, wherein at least oneof the MITM detection tests is an HTTP authentication test in which thefirst node periodically polls the second node requesting a known fileand confirms whether a reply seeking authentication credentialsindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node.
 53. The computer program product of claim 45, whereinat least one of the MITM detection tests includes the first node (i)periodically polling the second node for a static file, (ii)cryptographically hashing the static file, and (iii) comparing thecryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographic hash of a knownstatic file such that any discrepancies between the cryptographic hashesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node.
 54. The computer program product of claim 45, whereinat least one of the MITM detection tests is a communication protocoltest in which public keys utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to known public keys such that anydiscrepancies among public keys indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node.
 55. Thecomputer program product of claim 45, wherein at least one of the MITMdetection tests is a communication protocol test in which a cipher suiteutilized by cryptographic communications involving the first node arecompared to a known cipher suite such that any discrepancies betweencipher suites indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 56. The computer program productof claim 45, wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is an HTTPStrict Transport Security (HSTS) test in which public keys utilized bycryptographic communications involving the first node are compared toknown public keys such that any discrepancies among public keysindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node.
 57. The computer program product of claim 45, whereinat least one of the MITM detection tests is a gateway fingerprint testin which unexpected changes for an Internet Protocol (IP) and a mediaaccess control (MAC) address for a router intermediate the first nodeand the second node indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 58. The computer program productof claim 45, wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is a Timeto Live (TTY) test in which values in packet traffic received by thefirst node are monitored to determined if there are any values thatindicate that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node.
 59. The computer program product of claim 45, whereinat least one of the MITM detection tests is a multicast Domain NameSystem (mDNS) test in which the first node sends an mDNS request to thesecond node and if results received by the first node are compared toknown Domain Name System (DNS) values such that any discrepanciesbetween such values indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 60. The computer program productof claim 45, wherein at least one of the MITM detection tests is anupdate mechanism test in which the communications between the first nodeand the second node relate to an update of software on the first node,and executables forming part of the update are periodically comparedagainst known executables such that any discrepancies between suchexecutables indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 61. The computer program productof claim 45, wherein the first node is a mobile computing device and theoperations further comprise: placing the first node into an airplanemode upon determination of an occurrence of an interception or aninterception attempt.
 62. The computer program product of claim 45,wherein the first node is a mobile computing device communicating over awireless network and the operations further comprise: sending, by thefirst node, a broadcast to other nodes on the wireless networkindicating that an interception or an interception attempt has occurredon the wireless network.
 63. The computer program product of claim 45,wherein providing data comprises at least one of: displaying the data,loading the data into memory, storing the data, or transmitting the datato a remote computing system.
 64. The computer program product of claim45, wherein the plurality of different MITM detection tests comprises atleast two tests selected from a group comprising: (i) the HypertextTransfer Protocol (HTTP) compression test, (ii) an HTTP interceptiontest in which the first node periodically polls the second node andconfirms whether a returned status code indicates that there has been aredirect attempt by the third node, (iii) an HTTP authentication test inwhich the first node periodically polls the second node requesting aknown file and confirms whether a reply seeking authenticationcredentials indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (iv) a test in which the firstnode (a) periodically polls the second node for a static file, (b)cryptographically hashes the static file, and (c) compares thecryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographic hash of a knownstatic file such that any discrepancies between the cryptographic hashesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node, (v) a communication protocol test in which publickeys utilized by cryptographic communications involving the first nodeare compared to known public keys such that any discrepancies amongpublic keys indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (vi) a communication protocoltest in which a cipher suite utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to a known cipher suite such thatany discrepancies between cipher suites indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node, (vii) an HTTPStrict Transport Security (HSTS) test in which public keys utilized bycryptographic communications involving the first node are compared toknown public keys such that any discrepancies among public keysindicates that there has been a an interception or an interceptionattempt by the third node, (viii) a gateway fingerprint test in whichunexpected changes for an Internet Protocol (IP) and a media accesscontrol (MAC) address for a router intermediate the first node and thesecond node indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (ix) a Time to Live (TTY) testin which values in packet traffic received by the first node aremonitored to determined if there are any values that indicate that therehas been an interception or an interception attempt by the third node,(x) a multicast Domain Name System (mDNS) test in which the first nodesends an mDNS request to the second node and if results received by thefirst node are compared to known Domain Name System (DNS) values suchthat any discrepancies between such values indicate that there has beenan interception or an interception attempt by the third node, and (xi)an update mechanism test in which the communications between the firstnode and the second node relate to an update of software on the firstnode, and executables forming part of the update are periodicallycompared against known executables such that any discrepancies betweensuch executables indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 65. The computer program productof claim 45, wherein the plurality of different MITM detection testscomprises at least three tests selected from a group comprising: (i) theHypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) compression test, (ii) an HTTPinterception test in which the first node periodically polls the secondnode and confirms whether a returned status code indicates that therehas been a redirect attempt by the third node, (iii) an HTTPauthentication test in which the first node periodically polls thesecond node requesting a known file and confirms whether a reply seekingauthentication credentials indicates that there has been an interceptionor an interception attempt by the third node, (iv) a test in which thefirst node (i) periodically polls the second node for a static file,(ii) cryptographically hashes the static file, and (iii) compares thecryptographically hashed static file to a cryptographic hash of a knownstatic file such that any discrepancies between the cryptographic hashesindicates that there has been an interception or an interception attemptby the third node, (v) a communication protocol test in which publickeys utilized by cryptographic communications involving the first nodeare compared to known public keys such that any discrepancies amongpublic keys indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (vi) a communication protocoltest in which a cipher suite utilized by cryptographic communicationsinvolving the first node are compared to a known cipher suite such thatany discrepancies between cipher suites indicates that there has been aninterception or an interception attempt by the third node, (vii) an HTTPStrict Transport Security (HSTS) test in which public keys utilized bycryptographic communications involving the first node are compared toknown public keys such that any discrepancies among public keysindicates that there has been a an interception or an interceptionattempt by the third node, (viii) a gateway fingerprint test in whichunexpected changes for an Internet Protocol (IP) and a media accesscontrol (MAC) address for a router intermediate the first node and thesecond node indicates that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node, (ix) a Time to Live (TTY) testin which values in packet traffic received by the first node aremonitored to determined if there are any values that indicate that therehas been an interception or an interception attempt by the third node,(x) a multicast Domain Name System (mDNS) test in which the first nodesends an mDNS request to the second node and if results received by thefirst node are compared to known Domain Name System (DNS) values suchthat any discrepancies between such values indicate that there has beenan interception or an interception attempt by the third node, and (xi)an update mechanism test in which the communications between the firstnode and the second node relate to an update of software on the firstnode, and executables forming part of the update are periodicallycompared against known executables such that any discrepancies betweensuch executables indicate that there has been an interception or aninterception attempt by the third node.
 66. The computer program productof claim 45, wherein the different types of MITM detection tests areinitiated at pre-defined intervals and according to a specifiedsequence.